The new SKHS grading system

               After the recent Presidential election, I think most RIers would agree that there are consequences when much of the electorate knows little about civics, about foreign affairs, about environmental concerns, etc.  The USA is the most powerful country on Earth, its President the most powerful person on the planet, who has access to the “nuclear codes.”  Do high school grads have sufficient background content so as to be able to understand political debates on climate change, nuclear proliferation, migration from Central America, Islam, ISIS, etc?  The RI students coming to my URI International Politics course do not have this background, although SK students do far better than most!.

            After 2 decades teaching Social Studies at South Kingstown High School, I went “across the pond”, to teach a year in England on a Fulbright teacher exchange (1997-98).  I thought I would learn all sorts of first class educational strategies, assuming that the Europeans had comparatively better educational systems.   I was wrong!  Although I thoroughly enjoyed my year in England, the teaching was, quite frequently, frustrating.  I couldn’t wait to get back to my teaching position at SK, where I could really teach! 

            I retired from SKHS in 2009, and since then I’ve taught in the Political Science Department at URI, and in the Education Department at Salve Regina.  I have been supervising Social Studies student teachers in a variety of RI high schools.  During the past decade, I have witnessed many well- meaning reforms in RI secondary schools, which remind me of why it was so difficult to teach effectively in England.

            First off, in 1997 what really mattered in England was how you did on national standardized tests.  There were no course grades, no transcripts, no GPA, no class rank.  How students did on standardized tests determined what type of school they’d be able to attend, and how teachers and school systems were assessed. The tests were the same irrespective of which of the three “academic sets” the student was in.  Therefore, the tests had to be low hurdles so that lower set students could succeed.  The curriculum was narrowed, and teachers would constantly review what they had already taught, “teaching for the tests.”  They were discouraged from teaching lessons which would not be tested.  Their passions were irrelevant; their morale very low.

            As a result, the top and middle set students were not very challenged, and they were frequently the most ill – behaved in class.   On the other hand, the lower set students did not experience as much failure as do “lower set students” in the US, because the hurdles were “jumpable.”  A recent South County Independent headline stated that the “new (SK) grading policy makes it hard for students to fail.”  This is commendable, but what are the unintended consequences? Who loses out with this new policy?                  

            In 1997 England, homework was more-or-less optional.  It was not graded.  Rather, teachers would give written feedback to parents 3 times per year that would review homework completion, effort, class participation, etc. The teacher would predict how they thought the student would do on the standardized tests, which was what parents really cared about.  As a result, I found out that only a minority of students would do the homework.  I also found out that many teachers had given up, and rarely assigned homework.  Now, I understand the argument that homework is frequently “busy work” and that some Math and Language students, for example, may not need to do homework if they understood the concept in class.  However, in Social Studies, homework can frequently be used to learn new things, enhancing the breadth of material covered in the course.

            So, here is a dilemma I faced in England, which will ring true with many RI Social Studies teachers.  Let’s say you’re teaching a mini-unit on World War 1.  On Monday, you teach the students about the long term causes of the war.  For homework, you assign a reading and writing assignment whereby students would learn reasons for the outbreak of the war (alliances; the assassination of the Archduke, etc.), as well as the course of the war (trench and gas warfare, US delayed involvement, etc.)  On Tuesday, you plan on teaching the results and significance of the war but, when you collect the homework, you find that only 5 of the 25 students did the homework.  Problem!!  Do you go on with your plan, leaving 20 students behind, or do you fully review what 5 students learned about in the homework?  If you choose to review, the collateral damage is that all 25 students may not do the homework next time, and the teacher may conclude that it’s not worth assigning homework.  I would imagine that the new SKHS homework policy will result, not only in less homework done, but it will also result in less content covered in the course.  Other “trending” policies which, I imagine, result in teachers tearing out their hair, are the flexible homework deadline and “re-do” policies.  In the above example, what would happen if the students could turn in the homework two, three or 15 days late, or if they could re-do it after a meager first effort?

            My major concern is that many of the new reforms are the result of a “less is more” educational approach.  Supporters of this approach are not concerned with the breadth of material taught; rather, their focus might be more skills oriented, or they may favor less topics, and more depth.  The US has the shortest school year in the Western world, and now we’re reducing content covered by reducing the importance of homework!  Having said that, I was happy to read Principal Mezzanotte’s comment in The Independent that he is “not in the business of micromanaging teacher’s gradebooks.”  I firmly believe that homework policy should be decentralized.  England has changed some of the policies previously mentioned.  I expect we’ll do the same when the pendulum switches.

At this point, I assume that significant portions of the RI electorate favor greater content covered in high school classes.  Our democracy is dependent on it!

RI high school students need exposure to more Global Studies content - in The Independent (3-17-16)

by Jim Buxton

         

NOTE # 1: THIS ARTICLE APPEARED IN THE INDEPENDENT 3-17-16.

SEE THE ARTICLE AFTER THIS ONE FOR A MUCH MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THIS ISSUE.  IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN EMAILING ME ON THIS TOPIC, RATHER THAN COMMENTING AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE, YOU CAN DO SO AT:  

JBuxton564@cox.net)

  
NOTE # 2:  The CAPITALIZED SECTIONS IN THE FOLLOWING TEXT ARE SOME THINGS I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE PUT INTO THE ARTICLE, BUT COULD NOT BECAUSE OF THE WORD LIMIT.

            To solve the immigration problem, Donald Trump proposes that “he’ll build a great wall on our southern border, and he’ll make the Mexicans pay for it.”  He overgeneralizes about Mexicans saying they’re criminals and rapists.  Trump disrespects 20% of the global population which is Islamic, while proposing that we need to build an anti-ISIS coalition with Islamic countries.  He says he’ll just “bomb the h…..” out of ISIS, and then take the oil!  You would think that these simplistic approaches would cause his poll numbers to go down. This is not the case.  Trump offers simplistic solutions to extremely complex, international controversies which are appealing to many of his supporters who may have insufficient background information on global matters.  Would Rhode Island high school graduates have the requisite knowledge regarding causes for refugees leaving Central America, or why there is such conflict in the Middle East, in order to evaluate the “Trump Doctrine”?

            Where does this need for simplistic global solutions come from?  I can only legitimately comment on RI.  I am concerned by the meager prior global knowledge of the Freshmen I teach in my International Politics course at URI.  (SKHS grads do better than most because most have taken Global Studies in high school.  WELL DONE, SKHS SOCIAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT) THE 100 LEVEL INTERNATIONAL POLITICS COURSE IS AN ELECTIVE.  MOST WILL NOT TAKE IT.  THEREFORE, the vast majority of RI high school graduates, who eventually graduate from URI, will do so without learning very much about the modern Middle East, a subject much debated in the current Presidential race.  Indeed, RI high school graduates should already have learned a lot more about current global history.  

            I’m certainly not blaming Social Studies Departments for this!  Since 2009, I’ve been supervising student teachers in a variety of high schools, and many of the teachers I come in contact with share a common concern; every year they’re able to teach less and less historical content.  In Western Civilization classes, they barely make it to the 20^th Century, and in US History they have to skim over the last 50 years.  The result is that they have insufficient time to teach about modern global issues.  Why is that?

            In the past ten years there have been numerous good-hearted reforms implemented in order to help previously unsuccessful students, which is an important priority.   To help reduce dropout rates, the following reforms have been promoted by the RI Department of Education, and instituted to varying degrees by individual school systems.  I focus on those which have contributed to a reduction in HS Social Studies content coverage the most:  (1) flexible deadlines for submitting homework: (2) re-tests, re-writes; (3) more peer teaching; (4) portfolio, as a way to show what students learn; (5) advisory period; (6) more heterogeneous groupings, except for AP and Honors students; (7) differentiated instruction, as a theoretical way of teaching the huge spectrum of abilities in the non-AP classes; (8) maximum percentages that homework can count for course grade; (9) extensive time spent on reflections; (10) pre- and formative assessments.  All of these well – meaning measures, inevitably, reduce content breadth.  (TO UNDERSTAND WHY EACH OF THESE MEASURES REDUCE CONTENT BREADTH, SEE THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE ON THIS BLOG.)
             Added to THE AFOREMENTIONED TEN MEASURES is the extraordinary amount of time spent taking and preparing for  standardized tests which, by the way, do not measure Social Studies content knowledge. IN FACT, A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOM TIME IS SPENT HELPING TO PREPARE STUDENTS FOR THE ENGLISH AND LANGUAGE ARTS PART OF THE PARCC TEST.   
           Finally, I would assert that there are many educational authorities who support a “less is more” educational philosophy; less content breadth, more depth.  IN MY PAST GLOBAL STUDIES TEACHING AT SKHS, AND IN MY CURRENT INTERNATIONAL POLITICS TEACHING AT URI, I CERTAINLY DEAL WITH MANY ISSUES IN GREAT DEPTH. THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT.  HOWEVER, IN MY VIEW, YOU CAN'T ANALYZE AN ISSUE IN DEPTH UNLESS YOU HAVE ESSENTIAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE TOPIC.  THE MEASURES MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY ARE REDUCING BOTH BREADTH, AND DEPTH.  INDEED, LESS IS NOT MORE; LESS IS LESS!
          The policy making authorities who are pushing these reforms tend to have elementary education backgrounds (See FORMER RIDE COMMISSIONER DEB GIST).  THEY DO NOT SEEM TO BE AS CONCERNED AS HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS SEEM TO BE WHEN BIOLOGY, ALGEBRA OR WORLD HISTORY breadth (or depth) is significantly reduced.  I WILL POINT OUT THAT I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR ELEMENTARY TEACHERS - MY DAUGHTER IS A 4TH GRADE TEACHER, AND I WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO DO WHAT SHE DOES!  I WOULD NEVER OFFER MY OPINION AS TO WHAT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS SHOULD TEACH, AND I WOULD RATHER HAVE HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS DECIDE WHAT IS TO BE TAUGHT AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL.  BY THE WAY, MY DAUGHTER USES ALMOST ALL OF THE 10 AFOREMENTIONED MEASURES IN HER 4TH GRADE CLASS.  I WOULD CONTEND THAT THESE SAME MEASURES CERTAINLY DO NOT APPLY TO HIGH SCHOOL TEACHING TO THE SAME DEGREE!
            I must acknowledge that the ten aforementioned measures have significant logic, and I’d imagine that they have reduced the likelihood of certain students dropping out, and that’s important!  However, what/who has been compromised?

            Most of the measures above don’t apply to AP students because the teachers are obliged to teach the content which will be assessed by national AP tests.  Therefore, they’re not compromised as much as the mid-level students who are exposed to less content than was once the case.  I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS NO CLEAR DEFINITION OF A MID-LEVEL STUDENT, AND THE MID-LEVEL STUDENT IN MATH MAY BE AN AP STUDENT IN ENGLISH.  NONETHELESS, I WILL STILL CONTEND THAT THE TEN AFOREMENTIONED MEASURES, ESPECIALLY # 6, HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED THE BROAD MIDDLE.
                   Interestingly, private schools are not affected by 1 – 10 above, or by standardized tests.  
                  Although this topic is very complex, I would say that the “elephant in the room” is that the mid-level student in many public schools gets compromised the most in regard to potential global literacy.  In the end, an overuse of the aforementioned reform measures, with disregard for the breadth of history content covered, is dangerous to our democracy because we are graduating students who have insufficient global competence (WHICH IS THEORETICALLY A RI DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION GOAL). Therefore, ALL TOO MANY RI HS AND COLLEGE GRADUATES are subject to being manipulated by those who offer simplistic solutions to address complex global problems.  They’re also less likely to understand newspaper coverage of international news.

            For more “breadth” and “depth”on this topic, see my Blog: rihssocialstudies.blogspot.com

            ********************************************************************

            Jim Buxton taught Social Studies at South Kingstown HS for three decades, and is currently an Adjunct in the URI Political Science Department, and the Salve Regina Education Department.

20 reasons why today's HS Social Studies students get dangerously less content exposure than those of 2 decades ago

by Jim Buxton:  University of Rhode Island Political Science Dept./ 
Salve Regina University Education Dept.  

NOTE:  The following article is a much more lengthy "treatise" than the one which I wrote which appeared in the Westerly Sun and the Newport Daily News in mid February 2016, and in the Independent in mid March 2016. As compared to that article, which had a 750 maximum word count, this piece goes into much greater depth, and includes much more breadth, as to why Social Studies content breadth has been compromised by well-meaning educational reform measures. (If you'd like to email me on this topic, you can do so at JBuxton564@cox.net - 
I would not put your email on the Blog)
************************************************

            Before I begin with my arguments regarding my concerns in relation to breadth of content covered in high school US and World History classes, let me alert you of my background, which will help you appreciate the perspective I feel that I have on this topic.

            For 32 years, I was a Social Studies teacher at South Kingstown HS in RI.  I taught Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy, “American Citizen in a Changing World,” AP Comparative Politics, Honors International Relations, two levels of US History and two levels of Global Studies. (No, not all at the same time!)   I was named RI Social Studies Teacher of the Year in 1996.

            Since retiring in 2009, I have taught as an Adjunct in the URI Political Science Department, and as an Adjunct in the Education Department of Salve Regina University.  In this capacity, I have supervised Social Studies student teachers, and through this experience I have been exposed to Social Studies teaching at a variety of RI high schools.  Hence, I feel like I have a good sense for what Social Studies student teachers are learning, what high school teachers are teaching and what college professors are expecting. 

            The crux of my argument is that there is a major disconnect between what high school Social Studies students are being exposed to and what History and Political Science professors, in mid-level colleges, may be expecting in their incoming students.  It is my belief that this disconnect shows up in many ways.  The area I will be focusing on is the breadth of content disconnect, that would lead many college professors to be shocked by the reduction in prior knowledge in their 2016 students as compared to their 2004 students.  As I am primarily an International Politics teacher at URI, I will be focusing on Global Studies / International Politics illiteracy.

                If you feel you do not need convincing regarding the startling political, geographical and historical illiteracy  of our young adults, then feel free to go the Reason # 1 on page 3.

            For the past four years, I have done a polling of my URI students and my Salve Regina students.  I polled approximately 300 URI students and 85 Salve students.  They ranged from Freshmen to Juniors, and approximately a third of them were Political Science or History majors.  I teach a 100 level course in International Politics at URI, and I was curious as to their prior knowledge in this area.  The poll was simple.  It was a list of 36 historical figures or locations.  The students had to write in what country they were from.  The results were alarming.  I’ll share a bit of the results.  Hopefully, you are as alarmed as I was.

NOTE: Students from RI did less well on this "pre-test" as compared to students from New York where there is a mandatory HS class in Global Studies.  Additionally, South Kingstown students did fairly well, as most of them had taken a high school Global Studies course.

Here are the results:
54% correctly answered that Nelson Mandela was from South Africa.

11% correctly answered that Mecca was in Saudi Arabia.

59% correctly answered that Baghdad was in Iraq

52% answered that Mao Zedong was from China                 

13% answered that Ayatollah Khomeini was from Iran

Following are the % of students who answered correctly in regard to where the person listed was from:

53% Vladimir Lenin (Russia/USSR)

60% the Taliban (either Afghanistan or Pakistan were correct answers)

11% Yasser Arafat     

4% Mohammed    (a variety of answers were acceptable for the last 2)

18% Ahmadinejad    

68% Fidel Castro                    

62% Joseph Stalin

32% apartheid            

13% Kabul or Hamid Karzai 

16% Hutus and Tutsis

75% Gandhi               

3% Ho Chi Minh

83% Cairo                  

50% where Osama was killed

14% Darfur                

47% Saddam Hussein – most common miss was Afghanistan

            Now, I cannot contend that the sample size was sufficient.  The poll would not pass validity and reliability expectations.  However, I hope it brings up some serious questions, and perhaps a more official polling might be initiated. 

            A separate section of the polling asked students to approximate how many class periods they had learned about topics such as South African apartheid, Indian independence, Islam or the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Predictably, there was not very much coverage of global topics.

            My data is admittedly limited, so let me add to it by citing findings from a variety of surveys of American geographical, historical and political literacy.  In a 2002 Roper Public Affairs study, 18-24 students in the following countries were surveyed regarding their geographical knowledge:  Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Great Britain, Sweden and the USA.  The USA came in next to last, just ahead of Mexico.  In that survey, 50% of the students couldn't accurately place New York on a map; one-third of students couldn't tell you which direction was northwest, and 47% couldn't correctly place India on a world map.   

           In the 2006 National Geographic survey, it was found that 63% of American 18-24 year olds could not find Iraq on a map, and 90% of them could not find Afghanistan on a map.  It is ironic, and deeply disturbing that this was the case considering the hundreds of thousands of troops we had in those countries at the time.  In that same survey, 54% of those surveyed did not know that Sudan was in Africa, this despite the genocide that was raging in that country. 

             In the 2010 NAEP test on historical knowledge, only 12% of high school seniors demonstrated proficiency on the exam, with 88% falling in the bottom category: Basic.  On that test, only 2% of test takers were able to tell what social problem the Brown vs. Board of Education decision was supposed to resolve. ("US students remain poor at history, tests show"; Sam Dillon; NY Times; 6/14/2011)

             Finally, and most recently, in 2013 Public Policy Polling found that only 39% of those who felt that Benghazi was an extremely important issue could accurately say what country Benghazi was in.

             Does this matter?  Following are some of the campaign gaffes made by a variety of candidates for the Presidency in 2012.  My concern is in regard to whether or not most American college students would pick up the mistakes.

            Sarah Palin mistakenly declared that the US should stand by its “North Korean allies”.  (NOTE:  THE US IS ALLIED WITH SOUTH KOREA, NOT COMMUNIST NORTH KOREA!)   Michele Bachman said:  “What people recognize is that there's a fear that the United States is in an unstoppable decline. They see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union and our loss militarily going forward….”  (NOTE:  THE SOVIET UNION BROKE UP IN 1991) 

            Herman Cain said that China does not have nuclear weapons (“Yes, they're a military threat. They've indicated that they're trying to develop nuclear capability”), and Michele Bachman said that Iran already had nuclear weapons.  (NOTE: CHINA HAS HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS SINCE 1964, AND IRAN HAS NOT DEVELOPED NUCLEAR WEAPONS………….YET???)

            If you’d prefer non-Global Studies examples, you’ll remember when Michele Bachmann told the crowd in Concord, New Hampshire that they were “the state where the shot was heard around the world at Lexington and Concord.”  Another faux pas:  Rick Perry stated there were 8 Supreme Court justices, couldn’t remember many of their names and said that the voting age was 21.

         In the 2016 election campaign, Donald Trump has made almost daily gaffes in regard to 
"global literacy."             
         The question I would ask is whether there is a certain amount of historic literacy expected in our citizenry if we are to have a functioning democracy.  The assertion I would make is that the breadth of content covered in high school Social Studies is diminishing, and this reduction has significant implications for our democracy.  I will focus, however, on the implications for professors of History and Political Science. 

            The following is a list of 20 reasons why many college History and Political Science professors might be seeing a reduction in the relevant prior knowledge of their students.  In each section, I will try to acknowledge the possible benefits of each of the well-intentioned initiatives, before I discuss the inevitable costs.  In some cases, I’ll refer you to an article on the subject in my Blog.  (www.rihssocialstudies.blogspot.com)

1)  In high schools, generally, there is less lecturing /less teacher presentations/less direct instruction

Benefits:  The old days of lecturing from bell to bell are thankfully over.  Research studies have found that the attention spans of most students are out of sync with 45 minute lectures.  There are many alternatives to the old presentation method.  Cooperative learning, problem based learning, classroom discussions and more can enhance the student’s interest in the subject being taught. 

Costs:  As much as the above is true, the question we must ask is “are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater?”  Have we reduced presentation time so much that we have significantly reduced attention span.  Add to that the instant gratification of computers, smart phones, Facebook, twittering and more, and is there any surprise that after 5 minutes of instruction, the eyes of the students are glazing over.  High school teachers then accommodate this phenomenon, massively reducing their lecture time and one of the results is less content coverage.  (Read more on this topic in my 1/5/2014 Blog article, “Are lectures going the way of the do-do bird?)

2)  Student presentations are more common

Benefits:  The ability to communicate is crucial in this information age.

Costs:  If you have 25 students in class, and each one of them does a ten minute presentation (including processing time), that’s over 4 hours of content that has been forfeited.  Please don’t tell me that students will learn equally well from the content presented by their classmates, vis-à-vis that of their teachers.  If this is true, then why do we pay teachers?          

3)  More time consuming alternative assessments are being used more frequently

Benefits:  Students can demonstrate what they have learned in a variety of non-traditional ways.  They can create a poster, write a poem, do a power point or create a skit, as opposed to taking a test or writing an essay.

Costs:  Certainly, we would all support the above, but if it’s done too much, does the student get the impression that specific factual information is unimportant.  Does it matter who’s in the opposing trenches, or is the only thing that matters the idea that World War 1 fighting was hell?  Also, is it OK if the student does a power point on one aspect of World War 1, for example trench warfare, as opposed to being asked to know alliances, causes, Versailles Treaty, etc. on an objective test?  If this is OK, will he attend fully when we review the causes of World War 2?

4)   Cooperative learning in small groups is being used to a much greater extent.

Benefits:  The cooperative learning model involves student cooperation and interdependence to promote tolerance, acceptance of diversity, development of social skills, as well as academic achievement. 

Costs:  Certainly, we all would support the benefits listed above.  However, one could argue that the more students teach each other in small groups, the less content you will inevitably cover.  Also, there is much less quality control in regard to cooperative learning; the group you are in may be very dysfunctional.

5) Heterogeneous grouping / "de-tracking"

Benefits:  Homogeneous grouping (or tracking) implies dividing students up by ability, such that you might have 4 levels of US History.  Each level of USH would be taught differently.  One of the major problems with that is that the lowest group is stigmatized.  They feel they are labeled as stupid, and as a result they may not try very hard.  Often, the major behavior problems would be all grouped together, increasing the levels of distraction in these classrooms.  By creating heterogeneous classrooms, you spread out the educationally and behaviorally challenged.  These students are then in classrooms with students who will more likely pay attention, do their homework and are generally respectful, responsible and curious.

Costs:  If the teacher teaches all 25 kids, with very diverse ability levels, with the same lesson plan, then she will either leave some students behind, or she will be going too slowly for the more advanced students.  Defenders of heterogeneous grouping, will often say that the more advanced can help the less advanced which will help the leadership skills of the more advanced.

                Concern # 1:  If this happens frequently, will the more advanced student be exposed to less content                                   than he would be in a US History A class?

                Concern # 2:  If this happens frequently, should the student “tutor” be paid?

                 Anecdote:   I know of a student who was a very good high school Spanish student.  Her love for Spanish was augmented by a couple trips to Latin America.  As much as she loved Spanish class, she would often complain about the slow pace of the heterogeneous class.  She would be driven crazy by Spanish 3 students who still could not pronounce Jose and Juan correctly.  However, it was an easy A, which she appreciated since she was loaded down with AP and Honors classes.   

        In preparation for college, she took the SAT 2 in Spanish, and her essay on her standard college application was about how trips to Latin America sparked her love of Spanish.  She was very shocked and disappointed when she saw her SAT 2 result, feeling that her score of 500 delegitimized her “love for Spanish” essay, and that it may compromise her college application.   The bottom line question is whether her heterogeneous Spanish class could compete with AP Spanish classes (which her high school did not have)  Some argue that heterogeneous classes are a benefit for all students.  If that is true, then why do we have Honors and AP classes?

6)  Differentiated instruction:  Teachers are learning to differentiate instruction in order to teach students with diverse learning styles in the same classroom.

Benefits:  The goal of differentiation is to challenge students of all abilities in the same classroom.   If possible, this would enable the educationally challenged student to be in the same classroom with gifted students, while at the same time challenging the gifted students to attain their highest levels. 

Costs:  This would involve many different lesson plans for each class, and would necessitate a considerable amount of independent and cooperative learning, and would involve much less teacher presentation.  See above for concerns about this.  There may be wonderful learning experiences using these methods, however the amount of content covered would logically be reduced.

Important note:  The trend toward heterogeneous grouping and differentiated instruction does not affect Honors and AP classes.  AP classes, in particular, have externally imposed curricula, and student success is measured by national standardized tests.  Any attempt to fully move toward heterogeneous groupings across the board, thereby eliminating AP classes, would be met headlong by the parents of AP eligible students, who would provide the necessary political pressure to head off that movement.  The students who are more likely to be compromised by many of these educational reforms are the “upper middle” students who are not quite capable of success in AP courses.  They are mixed in with the “educationally challenged,” but the AP students are not.

 7)  Graduation by Proficiency in many schools involves the production of a Portfolio

Benefits:   In many RI school districts, students are asked to produce a portfolio to fulfill one of their diploma requirements.  According to the RI Department of Education (RIDE), the portfolio would be a “collection of work that documents a student’s academic performance over time and demonstrates deep content knowledge and applied learning skills.”  For many students who are poor test takers, the portfolio affords them the option of showing their proficiency on Science labs, Math projects or persuasive essays.  This process also ensures that every student will, at some point, produce a lab report that met the standard.  Falling through the cracks would theoretically be less likely.

Costs:  For a significant amount of students, more or less depending on the school system, portfolio is seen as a time consuming, mindless task which does not promote significant learning.  At one RI high school, students take a quarter-long course in portfolio during each of their 4 years in high school.  That amount of time may be needed for some, but for others it is a study hall.  For the more advanced student it may be a lost educational opportunity.  Additionally, one might question the degree to which the portfolio represents “deep content knowledge” considering that the assessment is supposedly the same for all levels of students in the school.

 8)  Re-writes

Benefits:  There is a greater emphasis on allowing the student re-write opportunities. Additionally, it is common for 50% of the end of course exam to involve applied learning, and students must be afforded re-writes.  The first effort is considered a first draft.

Costs: The time spent doing a second draft is time lost from other educational opportunities.  Perhaps this is needed by some students, however is it needed by all students?

9)  The introduction of Advisory period into the school day. 

Benefits:  The idea of Advisory period took off after the Columbine massacre.  In the attempt to help certain students to feel less anonymous, it was decided that students would spend a certain amount of time each week in an Advisory period with the same teacher and students for their 4 years of high school.  There would be lots of discussion and bonding.  There would be no grades.  It would provide a haven for the lost child.  Advisories might be every day for 20 minutes, or three times a week for 30 minutes each or twice a week for 45 minutes each time.  According to RIDE, there would be “time and opportunity to support student achievement in the academic, career and personal/social domains.”

Costs:  We can all appreciate the need for more personalization in high school, especially in schools of 4000 students.  However, anything you add must be taken from somewhere else.  Clearly, for better or for worse, advisory reduces classroom time and therefore the breadth of content delivered.

10)  A “Less is more” philosophy is promoted by many in educational circles

Benefits:  When too much content is presented to students, they often learn it for the test, and forget it immediately afterwards.  Immersing in a topic provides a much better learning environment.  There is so much to know about World War 1.  Wouldn’t it be better if students delved into some aspect which they were interested in, for example trench warfare, chemical weapons or the sinking of the Lusitania.  Some argue that it doesn’t matter what you learn, the important thing is that you learn how to learn.  It’s not important that high school students learn about the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Rather, if they learn how to research, they can learn about the Arab-Israeli Conflict when they want to know about it.

Costs:  When students immerse too much, they are deprived of crucial content because they don’t get to many other topics.  Robert Marzano, a well-known educational reformer who wrote The Art and Science of Teaching, proposes a 15 day Unit Plan on Hiroshima for a US History class.  In the Unit, there were only 3 days where the teacher used some of the time to do direct instruction regarding the important content.  There was considerable time devoted to pre-assessments and formative assessments, establishing learning goals, creative ways of setting up groups, individual research and sharing of that research, development of a product displaying what they had learned, journal reflections, and much more.  The Unit Plan would take up over 10% of the US History class time.  An important question I would ask is what topics were not studied because of all the time spent on Hiroshima.

                Another concern I have is that without a significant degree of teacher led content, students also don’t get enough context to fully appreciate the topic they are immersing in.  For example, can a student really understand an article they might read about Israel, if they don’t know what Zionism, the West Bank or the 1947 Partition mean?

11)  For a variety of reasons, there are no national or state US or World History content standards that have been approved.  This is certainly the case in RI.    (For much more on this topic, read my post, “No Common Core US History or World History standards”, which I posted on my Blog, January 8, 2014)

Benefits:  Instead, the Common Core has actually already released skills standards for Social Studies.  There are a set of 10 literacy standards and 10 writing standards that all involve higher-order thinking skills and college and career readiness skills in Social Studies.  (Examples include being able to analyze primary sources, construct arguments when presented with conflicting viewpoints, etc.)  Some argue that these standards will serve as a major push for Social Studies teachers to transcend basic-level facts instruction and embrace a skills-based pedagogy

Costs:  As a result of the focus on skills, teachers will be assessed on their transmission of these skills, and not on their transmission of content.  Certainly, critical analysis skills are absolutely important, but can you critically analyze the gaffes of Michele Bachmann if you don’t have the background knowledge to do so?  According to Penn State Geography professor, Roger Downs, "students aren't learning subjects such as Geography and History as teachers spend more time on Math and Reading in order to accommodate standardized tests."  ("America students appear to be lost in latest study of geographic aptitude"; John Hechinger; Bloomberg News; 7/19/2011)

12)  Common Planning Time

Benefits:  According to RIDE, common planning time shall be used by teams of teachers, administrators and other educators for the substantive planning of instruction, looking at student work, addressing student needs, and group professional development.  By the year, 2011-2012, there had to be one hour per week of common planning time at the high school level. 

Costs:  One hour less of student-teacher contact time

13)  Proliferation of Standardized Testing

Benefits:  There are many obvious benefits which have been discussed fully.

Costs:  As is commonly heard, “we’re testing more and more, and teaching less and less!”

 14)  Block scheduling

Benefits:  Having classes of 90 minutes, rather than 50 minutes, allows for greater depth, and more variation in pedagogy. 

Costs:  Greater depth may very likely reduce breadth.

15)  Very little of a High School Social teacher's evaluation is in regard to their knowledge of the content.

                Will content knowledge become less important in the hiring process in the future?

16) Flexible deadlines for homework to be submitted (See my post on my Blog: “Flexible deadlines for student work”, January 4, 2014)

17) Maximum amount that homework can count for the quarter grade (10 – 15 % is becoming typical) For much  more on this topic, see my post, which I posted to my Blog on January 24, 2014.

18) Textbooks are used much less frequently

                Textbooks are expensive.   More and more Social Studies Departments are choosing against replenishing the texts when they get worn, lost or out of date.  Frequently, teachers only have a classroom copy.  Hence, texts are only used in class, and not for homework.  The result:  less exposure to the massive content in the text, which can be viewed positively and negatively.

19)  Extensive use of pre-assessments, and formative assessments

20) Extensive time spent by the student reflecting on what has been learned

21-25)  I’m sure that any History teacher can come up with at least five other reasons.  Please, add to these to the  list!

 ****************************************************************************

            Having reviewed the reasons for content reduction in high school in non-AP Social Studies courses, I’d like to make a variety of clarifying statements.

             1)  I taught AP Comparative Politics for 10 years.  My students performed well on the AP test, but I eventually cancelled the program because I thought that the content requirements of the course were too expansive.  Instead, I created an Honors International Relations course where I had more control over the content taught.  So, this was a case when I thought the breadth of content to be covered was “over the top.”

            2)  It can certainly be argued that there have been a lot of benefits getting away from the lecture and fact-based history teaching of the 1950s, for example. 

            3) It can be argued that just because a student may have been exposed to more content in the past doesn’t necessarily mean they truly learned more information.  Indeed, some would argue that techniques such as cooperative learning, student presentations and alternative assessments may create more internalized learning than the teacher centered approaches of the past.

            4)  My comments are focused on the kind of students that go to URI.  Therefore, my comments may not apply to Honors level students or to “educationally disadvantaged students.”

             Whether the reforms are mostly positive or mostly negative, I believe that there are significant implications for History and Political Science college professors:

1) Students will not have as much note-taking experience as students of the past.

2)  Students will have shorter attention spans.  If professors employ a good amount of lecturing,   they may have to reduce the length, or make some adjustments in the way that they lecture.

3)  Students may have less prior knowledge, and therefore the texts you used in the past may assume prior knowledge that is just not there. 

4)  Students will expect a greater degree of active engagement.

5)  Students may expect alternative assessments, and may not appreciate the amount of traditional assessments used in a class

 “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.” - FDR

In Defense of Common Core

Friday, March 28, 2014

In defense of Common Core

What matters most is whether the new curriculum standards are an improvement. They are.

 March 13, 2014|By The Los Angeles Times editorial board

If there's anything more surprising than how quickly and calmly 45 states embraced the new Common Core curriculum standards, it's how quickly and contentiously the backlash erupted.

The standards, which California adopted in 2010, outline the skills and knowledge public school students should acquire in each grade from kindergarten through high school. Overall, they call for covering fewer topics, but covering each more deeply. They require students to think their way through math problems, rather than taking so much direct instruction from teachers. More careful reading is another part of the standards, along with the reading of more nonfiction. Students do more analysis and a lot more writing.

But almost as soon as the new standards got underway — most California schools began teaching the related curriculum this year — the coalition began to shred. Tea party conservatives claimed that the standards were being pushed too assiduously by the federal government, intruding on the states' authority to set curriculum. There's some justification for that argument. The Obama administration demanded higher academic standards from states that wanted federal grants or some freedom from the onerous No Child Left Behind law; though the Common Core standards were developed under the aegis of the National Governors Assn. and adopted by states voluntarily, it was known that embracing them would increase a state's chances of federal beneficence.

There's also a pragmatic motivation behind conservative opposition to Common Core: Its success would represent a political victory for the administration.

Backlash has also come from parents and teachers' unions, who rightly argue that the standards have been implemented hastily and sloppily in too many states. They have legitimate worries that schools and teachers will be held responsible for student performance on standardized tests even as they try to work out the kinks in a dramatically new set of expectations. Researchers recently reported that, so far, there are no textbooks that are truly aligned with Common Core standards.

Several state legislatures are now pushing back. Bills in Georgia and Wyoming call for reviewing the standards with a possible eye to junking them; legislation in Wisconsin and Alabama would repeal Common Core altogether. New York is delaying full implementation after a rushed and botched start. At the federal level, Republican legislators have introduced bills and a resolution that would scold the administration for pushing the standards, and bar any use of federal grants or regulatory favors as a reward for adopting them.

What gets lost amid the political and administrative squabbling is the issue that ought to matter most: whether the Common Core standards are a solid improvement on what most states, including California, had before. And with a few caveats, they are. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics praises them for following a more logical track in building math skills. The standards are also more closely aligned with how the top-scoring nations in international tests teach math. Educators are pleased that students will do more writing under the standards; colleges have long complained about the poor writing skills of incoming students.

California's old curriculum standards were particularly well known for being a mile wide and an inch deep. Here's one small example: In the middle of second grade, students were taught about obtuse and acute angles even though they had no geometry background to understand the concept. Although they didn't know what a right angle was or how many degrees it had, they would do a few work sheets and then drop the subject for several years.

The Common Core standards eliminate that sort of nonsense and build, from the earliest years, understanding of topics that now befuddle many students, such as multiplying and dividing fractions. In kindergarten, they might start very simply: folding paper in half, and in half again.

Criticism of Common Core — of the standards themselves, not the politics or implementation — focuses on a few areas. One is that while in many states, including California, most students are supposed to take Algebra 1 in eighth grade, under the new standards most take that or an equivalent course as high school freshmen. That gives them no time to reach calculus in high school, though advanced students may follow an accelerated course of study that allows it. If any group ought to be worried about that, it would be mathematicians. Yet the Mathematical Assn. of America says it isn't a problem. It's more important, a spokesman said, for students to get a deeper understanding of what they're being taught; and besides, the idea that a high school education must include calculus is outmoded.

Tennessee student makes strong case against Common Core

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/15/this-could-be-one-of-the-best-cases-ever-made-against-common-core-no-one-expected-it-to-come-from-a-high-school-student/

How to grade reflections in Intro to Am.Ed.?

How to grade reflections in Intro to Am.Ed.? Should reflections even be part of Am. Ed.?

               Buxton’s “grading” of reflections is subjective and imprecise.  A “New Reflection         Rubric” was given to you in class on March 10th.  (Note:  this rubric is not meant to be taken seriously) This rubric is not subjective, and it is precise, but it has numerous problems.  Can you offer an alternative?  Do you have comments regarding this dilemma?  English teachers - how do you deal with the subjectivity in your assessments?  Math - Science - are you happy that your assessments are more "fact based"?

LATER SCHOOL STARTS?

By James Vaznis GLOBE STAFF  MARCH 10, 2016

EASTHAM — For decades, hundreds of bleary-eyed students across the Outer Cape scrambled to beat the 7:25 a.m. opening bell at Nauset Regional High School. Many set out before sunrise, coffee in hand, and traveled up to 45 minutes. Then they struggled to stay awake in class.

“At one point, we asked teachers not to turn off lights or show movies, because we didn’t want students to fall back to sleep,” said Tom Conrad, the former principal, now superintendent.

So in a state where most high schools start before 8 a.m., Nauset school officials in 2012 did the unthinkable: They pushed their start time back to 8:35 a.m., giving students an extra hour to sleep in.

The results were instantaneous, administrators say. More students showed up to school refreshed. Tardiness fell by 35 percent, and the number of Ds and Fs dropped by half.

Now, several high schools across Massachusetts are exploring whether to follow suit. The push for later start times is emerging in such districts as Belmont, Boston, Masconomet, Mashpee, Newton, and Wayland. The state Legislature is considering a bill to study the issue statewide.

For skeptics, the movement might seem like pandering to the whims of undisciplined teenagers who want extra Zs. But an increasing body of research has documented a shift in the biology of teenagers that delays their sleep and wake-up cycles by about two hours, pushing off their natural bedtime to 11 p.m. or later. That, in turn, means that if they need to get to school at the crack of dawn, they will routinely get only five or six hours of sleep.

The lack of adequate shut-eye can have detrimental effects on the health and academic performance of teenagers, increasing their risks for early morning car crashes, suicidal tendencies, depression, binge drinking, drug overdoses, and bad grades, research has shown. Several studies in recent years have recommended starting high school at 8:30 a.m. or later, saying students should get between 8.5 and 9.5 hours of sleep per night — not the 6 hours that is often the case.

“Some kids are exposed to the same degree of sleep loss for four or five years,” said Judith Owens, director of the Center for Pediatric Sleep Disorders at Boston Children’s Hospital. “It’s not a good thing. . . . If you are asking teenagers to get up at 5:30 or 6, that is their lowest point of alertness in their 24-hour cycle. It’s at that point where their brain is most loudly saying ‘stay asleep.’”

Yet efforts in other districts to delay start times have often been stymied. Critics say the change creates conflicts with sports schedules and afterschool programs, leaves students without enough time for afterschool jobs, and could interfere with bus schedules for elementary-school students who typically get out later in the afternoon.

Many of the nearly 1,000 students who attend Nauset Regional High School, tucked within the Cape Cod National Seashore, agree that starting school later is better, even though it pushes dismissal to 3 p.m.

“I’m not a morning person,” Mason Swift, 17, a senior who plays on the school’s baseball team, said recently. “If I had to be here for 7:30, I would be asleep for the whole first block” of classes.

Massachusetts has one of the earliest start times for secondary school students in the nation, according to a report last year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On average, the morning bell for middle and high schools in Massachusetts rings at 7:53 a.m. — 10 minutes earlier than the national average — while less than 12 percent of all middle and high schools statewide start at 8:30 a.m. or later, according to the report.

The CDC has joined a growing number of national organizations calling for later start times for both high school and middle school students. Those organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Sleep Foundation, and the nation’s largest teachers union, the National Education Association.

Owens, of Boston Children’s Hospital, said many school systems have their schedules upside down, arguing that elementary school students, who typically have the later start times, should be the ones going to school early because they are the “morning larks.”

A pre-dawn start

Shortly after 6, as the first rays of dawn illuminated the convenience stores, takeout restaurants, and doughnut shops in Maverick Square in East Boston, 17-year-old Koraliz Cruz stepped inside the glass entryway to the Blue Line. Cruz, with a tote bag slung over her shoulder, had been up for more than an hour. This was the beginning of her hourlong daily commute to Boston Latin Academy in Dorchester that has her racing to meet a 7:20 a.m. opening bell.

She must rely on public transit because the school system does not bus high school students, leaving her with a commute rife with potential delays. From the Blue Line, she changes to the Orange Line, then catches an MBTA bus in Roxbury for the final leg of the trip on traffic-clogged streets.

Many of Boston’s approximately three dozen high schools have among the earliest start times in the state.

“I usually get five or six hours of sleep,” said Cruz, explaining that four hours of homework kept her up until 11 the previous night. She said she almost always walks to the T with a friend because the neighborhood is not safe, especially before sunrise.

Cruz, a member of the cheerleading team, wishes school started at least an hour later, adding, “I usually don’t wake up until third or fourth period.”

Part of Cruz’s slowness to wake up comes down to biology.

Mary Carskadon at the Sleep Research Laboratory at Bradley Hospital and at Brown University has been leading research into the sleeping habits of teenagers for decades. Carskadon and her team have found that teenage brains secrete melatonin — a hormone that causes drowsiness — around 11 p.m., about two hours later than younger kids.

The delay in sleep then ripples into the morning hours, often causing students to miss REM episodes, the deepest level of sleep needed to recharge their batteries, because their alarm clocks go off first or a parent bangs on their bedroom door.

Shifting school start times to 8:30 or later can bring about powerful change to students’ academic performance and overall health, according to a study by the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at the University of Minnesota, which examined eight schools with later start times in Minnesota, Colorado, and Wyoming.

The later times allowed about 60 percent of students to get at least eight hours of sleep, and the schools saw increases in standardized test scores and attendance rates and a decrease in tardiness, the study said. It also found that the number of car crashes involving teen drivers dropped 70 percent after a school shifted its start time from 7:35 a.m. to 8:55 a.m.

This kind of research has spurred many local school systems or grass-roots parent organizations to reexamine start times.

The Newton School Committee is expected to select from a number of proposals this spring for later starts at the city’s two high schools by September to help reduce student stress, which can be elevated by exhaustion. Under the change, the schools could begin at 9 a.m. instead of 7:50 a.m. at Newton North and 7:40 a.m. at Newton South.

In Mashpee, a panel of educators, parents, and school leaders last month recommended starting the Cape town’s high school an hour later, 8:30 a.m., beginning fall 2017.

And the Masconomet Regional School System, made up of Boxford, Middleton, and Topsfield, is studying later start times for its middle and high schools.

But a group of Boston Latin Academy parents, who have been pushing for a later start time, are facing an uphill battle, even though a survey of students that parents conducted last year found that 40 percent of respondents got less than six hours of sleep a night. Only a handful of Boston public schools start after 8:30 a.m.

“We believe this is a public health issue,” said Deborah Putnam, one of the Latin Academy parents heading the effort.

Superintendent Tommy Chang declined to comment through a spokesman. In a statement, the School Department said Chang is “listening to parents and students on all sides of the debate” but added “there is no plan in Boston to begin high school classes later in the morning.”

Researchers caution that delaying school start times is not a silver bullet. Some teenagers are exhausted because of other reasons, such as compulsively using their smartphones late into the night, staying up to watch television shows or movies, drinking too much caffeine, or cramming too many extracurricular activities into their days.

The Nauset Regional School District — which consists of Eastham, Brewster, Orleans, and Wellfleet — spent years debating whether to shift its longstanding 7:25 a.m. start time. Ultimately the research into the benefits of a later start time proved to be too persuasive to ignore.

The biggest challenge was transportation because Nauset buses students at all grade levels and schools shared a limited number of buses.

To accommodate an 8:35 a.m. start at the high school, officials had to move the start time of the elementary school, which had opened around that same time, to 7:45 a.m. They also moved back the middle school start time by a half hour to 8:30 a.m. so those students could share buses with the high school students.

The broad changes, while benefiting the high school, caused tardiness to rise temporarily in the elementary and middle schools as families adjusted to the earlier start times. The school system also never achieved transportation savings by consolidating the middle and high school bus routes.

But the impact on sports was not as significant as school officials initially anticipated. Neighboring school systems have been accommodating in scheduling games later in the day or on Saturdays, and several student athletes say sleeping later in the morning far outweighs the late afternoon practices and games.

“It’s easier to get a good night of sleep,” said Paul Prue, 18, a senior who plays baseball and says he gets about eight hours of sleep.

Not all Nauset students embrace a later start. Branden Patterson, 17, and a group of his friends show up to school early most mornings, drink coffee in their pickup trucks, and listen to country music while they wait until classes begin.

“Starting at 7:30 would be awesome,” said Patterson, a senior, noting that an earlier dismissal would give him more time to work at a local fish market.

But Mark Mathison, a math and science teacher who specializes in teaching students with disabilities, said the later start time appears to have helped many of his students.

“Trying to motivate those students at 7:30 in the morning was tough,” said Mathison, who also is president of the teachers union. “But now they seem more alert and awake.”

James Vaznis can be reached at jvaznis@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @globevaznis.